On Sat, 24 Mar 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Yeah, so Nacked-by: Peter Zijlstra
>
> Also, why didn't lockdep catch it?
>
> Fix sparse already instead of smearing ugly all over.
>
Fully agreed, please don't add this to the oom killer.
___
Linuxppc-de
On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 20:21 +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> Just wonder how do you see the feature implemented?
>
> Something like this?
>
> #define __ret_cond_locked(l, c) __attribute__((ret_cond_locked(l, c)))
> #define __ret_value __attribute__((ret_value))
> #define __ret_loc
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 01:52:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
> > p.s. I know Peter Zijlstra detest the __cond_lock() stuff, but untill
> > we have anything better in sparse, let's use it. This particular
> > patch helped me to detect one bug that I myself made during
> > tas
On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 14:31 +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> This is needed so that callers would not get 'context imbalance'
> warnings from the sparse tool.
>
> As a side effect, this patch fixes the following sparse warnings:
>
> CHECK mm/oom_kill.c
> mm/oom_kill.c:201:28: warning: contex
This is needed so that callers would not get 'context imbalance'
warnings from the sparse tool.
As a side effect, this patch fixes the following sparse warnings:
CHECK mm/oom_kill.c
mm/oom_kill.c:201:28: warning: context imbalance in 'oom_badness' -
unexpected unlock
include/linux/rcupd
